Farklı uzmanlık alanlarına göre dental implant cerrahisinde sert doku ogmentasyon materyallerinin kullanım sıklığının değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı periodontistlerin ve ağız, diş ve çene (ADÇ) cerrahlarının sinüs artırma ve yatay/dikey artırma prosedürlerinde kullanılan greft ve membran biyomalzemelerine ilişkin tercih profillerini araştırmaktır. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Bu kesitsel çalışmaya Şubat ve Ağustos 2021 tarihleri arasında devlet kurumlarında veya özel sektörde çalışan ADÇ (n = 90) ve Periodontoloji (n = 90) alanında uzman 180 kişi katılmıştır. Anketler aracılığıyla demografik verileri ve uzmanlık alanı, uzman olarak deneyim yılları, geçen yıl yerleştirilen implant sayısı, sert doku artırma gerektiren hasta oranı ve sinüs ve yatay/dikey artırma prosedürlerinde kullanılan biyomalzeme ve bariyer membran türleri dahil olmak üzere çeşitli faktörlere ilişkin bilgiler toplanmıştır. Sonuçlar: Katılımcıların medyan yaşı 32,0 yıldı ve %55,6'sı erkekti. Her iki uzmanlık dalı da sinüs ogmentasyonda ksenograftlar ve emilebilir membranlara yönelik bir tercih gösterdi ve uzmanlık deneyimi arttıkça bu tercih de arttı. Periodontistler yatay ogmentasyonda için daha sık ksenograft kullanırken, ADÇ cerrahları dikey ogmentasyonda otojen greftlere daha fazla tercih gösterdi. Hem yatay hem de dikey ogmentasyon prosedürlerinde kombine greft tekniklerinin kullanımı deneyimle birlikte önemli ölçüde arttı. Deneyim arttıkça yatay ogmentasyon otojen greft kullanma eğilimi vardı. Sonuç: Bu çalışma ksenograft ve emilebilir membranların en yaygın kullanılan malzemeler olduğunu ve tercih modellerinin hem uzmanlık türünden hem de deneyim yıllarından etkilendiğini göstermektedir. Ek olarak, artan deneyim otojen greft ve kombine greft tekniklerini kullanma eğiliminin artmasıyla ilişkilidir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ogmentasyon
• Bariyer membranlar
• Diş implantı
• Greft

Evaluation of the frequency of hard tissue augmentation material usage in dental implant surgery based on different specialties

Öz

Aim: This study aimed to investigate the preference profiles of periodontists and oral, dental and maxillofacial (ODM) surgeons regarding graft and membrane biomaterials used in sinus augmentation and horizontal/vertical augmentation procedures. Material and Methods: This cross-sectional study included 180 specialists in ODM Surgery (n = 90) and Periodontology (n = 90) who were employed in state institutions or the private sector between February 2021 and August 2021. The surveys collected demographic data and information on various factors, including specialty, years of experience as a specialist, the number of implants placed in the past year, the proportion of patients requiring hard tissue augmentation, and the types of biomaterials and barrier membranes used in sinus and horizontal/vertical augmentation procedures. Results: The mean age of participants was 33.7 ± 6.3 years and 55.6% were male. Both specialties demonstrated a preference for xenografts and absorbable membranes in sinus augmentation, with an increasing tendency as specialty experience grew. Periodontists more frequently used xenografts for horizontal augmentation, whereas ODM surgeons showed a higher preference for autogenous grafts in vertical augmentation. The use of combined grafting techniques in both horizontal and vertical augmentation procedures increased significantly with experience. There was a tendency to use autogenous grafts in horizontal augmentation as experience increased. Conclusion: This study indicate that xenografts and absorbable membranes are the most commonly used materials, with preference patterns influenced by both specialty type and years of experience. Additionally, increasing experience is associated with a greater tendency toward using autogenous grafts and combined grafting techniques.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Augmentation
• Barrier membranes
• Dental implant
• Graft

Kaynakça

1. Toti P, Marchionni S, Menchini-Fabris GB, Marconcini S, Covani U, Barone A. Surgical techniques used in the rehabilitation of partially edentulous patients with atrophic posterior mandibles: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2017;45(8):1236-45.
2. Esposito M, Felice P, Worthington HV. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: augmentation procedures of the maxillary sinus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;2014(5):Cd008397.
3. Meloni SM, Lumbau A, Spano G, Baldoni E, Pisano M, Tullio A, et al. Sinus augmentation grafting with anorganic bovine bone versus 50% autologous bone mixed with 50% anorganic bovine bone: 5 years after loading results from a randomised controlled trial. Int J Oral Implantol (Berl). 2019;12(4):483-92.
4. Gultekin BA, Cansiz E, Borahan O, Mangano C, Kolerman R, Mijiritsky E, et al. Evaluation of volumetric changes of augmented maxillary sinus with different bone grafting biomaterials. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery. 2016;27(2):e144-e8.
5. Felice P, Marchetti C, Piattelli A, Pellegrino G, Checchi V, Worthington H, et al. Vertical ridge augmentation of the atrophic posterior mandible with interpositional block grafts: bone from the iliac crest versus bovine anorganic bone. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2008;1(3):183-98.
6. Elgali I, Omar O, Dahlin C, Thomsen P. Guided bone regeneration: materials and biological mechanisms revisited. Eur J Oral Sci. 2017;125(5):315-37.
7. Korsch M, Walther W, Robra BP, Sahin A, Hannig M, Bartols A. Pre-implantological treatment routines for alveolar ridge atrophy - an investigation among maxillofacial and oral surgeons in southern Germany. BMC Oral Health. 2020;20(1):195.
8. Al-Moraissi EA, Alkhutari AS, Abotaleb B, Altairi NH, Del Fabbro M. Do osteoconductive bone substitutes result in similar bone regeneration for maxillary sinus augmentation when compared to osteogenic and osteoinductive bone grafts? A systematic review and frequentist network meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020;49(1):107-20.

9. Jensen OT, Bell W, Cottam J. Osteoperiosteal flaps and local osteotomies for alveolar reconstruction. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2010;22(3):331-46, vi.
10. Young MP, Sloan P, Quayle AA, Carter DH. A survey of clinical members of the association of dental implantology in the United Kingdom. Part II. The use of augmentation materials in dental implant surgery. Implant Dent. 2001;10(2):149-55.
11. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39(2):175-91.
12. Shuttleworth M. Content validity. Retrieved Apr. 2016;14.
13. Lawshe CH. A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel psychology. 1975;28(4):563-75.
14. Ramirez Fernandez MP, Mazon P, Gehrke SA, Calvo-Guirado JL, De Aza PN. Comparison of Two Xenograft Materials Used in Sinus Lift Procedures: Material Characterization and In Vivo Behavior. Materials (Basel). 2017;10(6).
15. Park WB, Okany KP, Park W, Han JY, Lim HC, Kang P. Atypical and Late-Developed Sinus Graft Complications Following Maxillary Sinus Augmentation: Successful Management with Guided Bone Regeneration. Medicina (Kaunas). 2024;60(8).
16. Peng W, Kim IK, Cho HY, Pae SP, Jung BS, Cho HW, et al. Assessment of the autogenous bone graft for sinus elevation. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013;39(6):274-82.
17. Sbordone C, Toti P, Guidetti F, Califano L, Bufo P, Sbordone L. Volume changes of autogenous bone after sinus lifting and grafting procedures: a 6-year computerized tomographic follow-up. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2013;41(3):235-41.
18. Starch-Jensen T, Deluiz D, Vitenson J, Bruun NH, Tinoco EMB. Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation with Autogenous Bone Graft Compared with a Composite Grafting Material or Bone Substitute Alone: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Assessing Volumetric Stability of the Grafting Material. J Oral Maxillofac Res. 2021;12(1):e1.
19. Kormas I, Pedercini A, Alassy H, Wolff LF. The Use of Biocompatible Membranes in Oral Surgery: The Past, Present & Future Directions. A Narrative Review. Membranes (Basel). 2022;12(9).
20. Zhao R, Yang R, Cooper PR, Khurshid Z, Shavandi A, Ratnayake J. Bone Grafts and Substitutes in Dentistry: A Review of Current Trends and Developments. Molecules. 2021;26(10).
21. Starch-Jensen T, Deluiz D, Duch K, Tinoco EMB. Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation With or Without Barrier Membrane Coverage of the Lateral Window: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Oral Maxillofac Res. 2019;10(4):e1.
22. Urban IA, Lozada JL, Jovanovic SA, Nagursky H, Nagy K. Vertical ridge augmentation with titanium-reinforced, dense-PTFE membranes and a combination of particulated autogenous bone and anorganic bovine bone-derived mineral: a prospective case series in 19 patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29(1):185-93.
23. Simion M, Fontana F, Rasperini G, Maiorana C. Vertical ridge augmentation by expanded-polytetrafluoroethylene membrane and a combination of intraoral autogenous bone graft and deproteinized anorganic bovine bone (Bio Oss). Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007;18(5):620-9.
24. Troeltzsch M, Troeltzsch M, Kauffmann P, Gruber R, Brockmeyer P, Moser N, et al. Clinical efficacy of grafting materials in alveolar ridge augmentation: A systematic review. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2016;44(10):1618-29.
25. Alpan AL, Cin GT. Perceptions and Surgical Approaches of Periodontists and Residency Students for Bone Augmentation Procedures. Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Dergisi.6(1):53-64.
26. de Azambuja Carvalho PH, Dos Santos Trento G, Moura LB, Cunha G, Gabrielli MAC, Pereira-Filho VA. Horizontal ridge augmentation using xenogenous bone graft-systematic review. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019;23(3):271-9.
27. Urban IA, Montero E, Amerio E, Palombo D, Monje A. Techniques on vertical ridge augmentation: Indications and effectiveness. Periodontol 2000. 2023;93(1):153-82.
28. Quisiguina Salem C, Ruiz Delgado E, Crespo Reinoso PA, Robalino JJ. Alveolar ridge preservation: A review of concepts and controversies. Natl J Maxillofac Surg. 2023;14(2):167-76.
29. Mateo-Sidron Anton MC, Perez-Gonzalez F, Meniz-Garcia C. Titanium mesh for guided bone regeneration: a systematic review. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2024;62(5):433-40.
30. Milinkovic I, Cordaro L. Are there specific indications for the different alveolar bone augmentation procedures for implant placement? A systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014;43(5):606-25.
31. Urban IA, Lozada JL, Wessing B, Suárez-López del Amo F, Wang HL. Vertical Bone Grafting and Periosteal Vertical Mattress Suture for the Fixation of Resorbable Membranes and Stabilization of Particulate Grafts in Horizontal Guided Bone Regeneration to Achieve More Predictable Results: A Technical Report. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2016;36(2):153-9.